There is an allegation on /r/bitcoin that concerns me

The probable answer: Sunny King referred to Primecoin when he wrote this, not to Peercoin. In Primecoin, checkpoints must be enforced by the users.

This part of the website should be changed.

[quote=“ppcman, post:15, topic:1384”]nullc posted this:

Not really. Peercoin's security comes from the developer of the system signing every block

Which appears to be a false statement. The only time the developer of the system [Sunny] signs a block, is when he hops on the network, with a client containing a MasterPrivKey, and signs a checkpoint block, and sends it out for the network to sync it against the genesis block.

Reading my debug.log, I’ve not seen one of those happen yet. The mere fact that the code allows this central checkpointing to take place in the event of a massive attack has kept the true attackers with massive hashpower to stay away and attack other coins that are more vunerable.[/quote]

If the most recently signed block is more than 10 days old, the wallet app issues a warning, as you can see in the source code here:

You do currently see this warning anytime you install the wallet app and download the blockchain until you are all caught up.

I could have missed it, but I don’t see anywhere in Peercoin’s code where the appearance of a new signed block is logged to debug.log. Maybe this is why you have not seen them reported there.

I think blocks are actually being signed by Sunny on a fairly regular basis. If he were not signing them, you would see the warning in the status bar when you use the wallet app.

Anyways, Greg Maxwell does appear to be wrong. He claimed that if a checkpoint was too old the wallet app would enter safe mode. That doesn’t seem to be the case, it just issues a warning. :slight_smile:

I think Sunny does do it frequently as a safety precaution on purpose. Think of it as good insurance. If he does it frequently, that way, if there ever was a massive attack, the problem could be resolved with very little loss. Let’s say he signs it once per day…so if there was an issue one day, we could go back to the day before and so very little time would be lost as compared to losing 10 days worth of transactions and network activity. Just because he is doing it frequently doesn’t mean Peercoin is insecure in any way, IMO, it just means Sunny is doing a good job of taking care of the network, so that “IF” there ever were to be a problem it the damage done would be minimal.

Just because we are using checkpoints != we need them. Sunny is just taking a cautious approach. I think checkpoints are the responsible thing to do, at this point, and better safe than sorry, I mean we all REALLY want to make sure Peercoin is around long-term. It is important that we remain humble and cautious as opposed to becoming arrogant and over-confident. Peercoin is still very young, and all of these cryptos are still “experimental”. We are not just throwing ourselves out there to let it be catastrophically attacked. Other cryptos have no such backup plan. IMO, I see these checkpoints as overall a good thing.

[quote=“Alertness, post:23, topic:1384”]I think Sunny does do it frequently as a safety precaution on purpose. Think of it as good insurance. If he does it frequently, that way, if there ever was a massive attack, the problem could be resolved with very little loss. Let’s say he signs it once per day…so if there was an issue one day, we could go back to the day before and so very little time would be lost as compared to losing 10 days worth of transactions and network activity. Just because he is doing it frequently doesn’t mean Peercoin is insecure in any way, IMO, it just means Sunny is doing a good job of taking care of the network, so that “IF” there ever were to be a problem it the damage done would be minimal.

Just because we are using checkpoints != we need them. Sunny is just taking a cautious approach. I think checkpoints are the responsible thing to do, at this point, and better safe than sorry, I mean we all REALLY want to make sure Peercoin is around long-term. It is important that we remain humble and cautious as opposed to becoming arrogant and over-confident. Peercoin is still very young, and all of these cryptos are still “experimental”. We are not just throwing ourselves out there to let it be catastrophically attacked. Other cryptos have no such backup plan. IMO, I see these checkpoints as overall a good thing.[/quote]

Solid response, but specifying what you mean by a ‘massive attack’ would provide additional support to your response. Also, I’d like to mention that although Sunny King can use the checkpoint and restore/fix the network, a whole other issue is created. The issue of faith/trust in the system after a ‘massive attack’.

Cheers.

P.S: I’d like to hear some suggestions on what a massive attack may be. :slight_smile:

LOL

[/quote]

Smooth 8)…HAHAHA

[quote=“JetJet13, post:24, topic:1384”][quote=“Alertness, post:23, topic:1384”]I think Sunny does do it frequently as a safety precaution on purpose. Think of it as good insurance. If he does it frequently, that way, if there ever was a massive attack, the problem could be resolved with very little loss. Let’s say he signs it once per day…so if there was an issue one day, we could go back to the day before and so very little time would be lost as compared to losing 10 days worth of transactions and network activity. Just because he is doing it frequently doesn’t mean Peercoin is insecure in any way, IMO, it just means Sunny is doing a good job of taking care of the network, so that “IF” there ever were to be a problem it the damage done would be minimal.

Just because we are using checkpoints != we need them. Sunny is just taking a cautious approach. I think checkpoints are the responsible thing to do, at this point, and better safe than sorry, I mean we all REALLY want to make sure Peercoin is around long-term. It is important that we remain humble and cautious as opposed to becoming arrogant and over-confident. Peercoin is still very young, and all of these cryptos are still “experimental”. We are not just throwing ourselves out there to let it be catastrophically attacked. Other cryptos have no such backup plan. IMO, I see these checkpoints as overall a good thing.[/quote]

Solid response, but specifying what you mean by a ‘massive attack’ would provide additional support to your response. Also, I’d like to mention that although Sunny King can use the checkpoint and restore/fix the network, a whole other issue is created. The issue of faith/trust in the system after a ‘massive attack’.

Cheers.

P.S: I’d like to hear some suggestions on what a massive attack may be. :)[/quote]
Massive attack could be something completely unknown, some new unforeseen vulnerability. My point is that other coins have no hope of to restore their networks, while Peercoin does. The issue of faith/trust will certainly be an issue if something happens, no doubt. All I am saying is that it is utterly irresponsible to not have some sort of a backup plan, in light of how much money is at stake, and how experimental cryptos still are. Cryptos are great, but it is still new technology, and should be proceed with caution and care especially when you are dealing with people’s money. Sunny is the most responsible developer I have seen.